Proposed alt.support.diet.low-cal group???

Low Calorie Diet » low calorie low fat » Proposed alt.support.diet.low-cal group???

Question:

This was on alt.config, and I place it here, with my comments following the final line of asterisks: Clearly there is no compelling need for a group devoted to a topic so rarely even discussed on Usenet. Furthermore, it is already covered in two newsgroups, the general alt.support.diet and the more specific alt.support.diet.low-fat. Calorie reduction is the main component of low-fat dieting.

I have to agree with everything Claudia said. There has been very little discussion of the topic in alt.support.diet, and no discussion at all of a need for a newsgroup. alt.support.diet.low-fat and alt.support.diet would cover it, and probably alt.support.diet.weightwatchers may be able to cover it as well. — "There’s a seeker born every minute." I think these people are mistaken, and let me say why. About the first paragraph: First, about a "topic so rarely even discussed on Usenet" — does this relate to a low calorie approach? Well, we talk about such approaches quite often on alt.support.diet, but oftentimes there are people warning others about low-calorie approaches, and it doesn’t take many warnings to turn people off. Second, "calorie reduction is the main component of low-fat dieting" not necessarily true at all. "Low-calorie" and "low-fat" are not the same thing. Indeed, many, many "high fat" diets work because the calories are low in those diets. As for the second paragraph, "alt.support.diet.low-fat and alt.support.diet" are not focused on the bottom lines of low-calorie and regular exercise. As for "alt.support.diet.weightwatchers" — hmmm… I think Weight Watchers is a nice organization, but it’s not an organization that defines the only (or even main) approach to low calorie diets. I’m not a member of Weight Watchers myself, and I know many, many people who are counting calories who are not members of Weight Watchers. If there was such a group — in which one would be supported by the posters for low calorie approaches and for daily exercise — there would be no need for the group noted above. But the unfortunate fact is that quite a few times on this newsgroup, people have said that dieters (presumably all or most dieters) should follow a slow weight-loss approach, and the people following a more severe calorie restricted approach whoe have posted here have been sometimes badly criticized. Them’s the facts. And, as I noted above, it doesn’t take too much of such criticism to turn people off to more rapid, motivating ways to lose weight. Seems to me that some people don’t want others to have access to such a Usenet group — or perhaps I am mistaken… But why not have such a group? Yours, Caleb

Response:

Maybe the point missed is: define low-cal. I follow the Zone program which is an advocator of a lower calorie WOE. My average is ~1600 cals per day. At 6′2", 196#, this is definitely lower than what the good FDA recommends, but slightly higher than the Zone outlines. So I guess the definition is where you need to be more clear. Low calories is a basic staple to many diets for weight loss. To try to categorize a diet as low-cal is like categorizing a dog as a carnivanour. — Kevin Stackin’ in the Zone – 270/199/200 – Done 10/01/1999! New Goal: 199/196/180 (or when the paunch is gone!) http://24.128.1.75/themurphys/diet/ Be careful – Christmas is coming: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Forest/6726/santa/santabad.jpg A pat on the back is only a few inches from a kick in the pants. —Murphy’s Laws on Working Memories of the previous post revealed…

| This was on alt.config, and I place it here, with my comments following the | final line of asterisks: | |

| Clearly there is no compelling need for a group devoted to a topic so | rarely | even discussed on Usenet. Furthermore, it is already covered in two | newsgroups, the general alt.support.diet and the more specific | alt.support.diet.low-fat. Calorie reduction is the main component of | low-fat dieting. | | I have to agree with everything Claudia said. There has been very little | discussion of the topic in alt.support.diet, and no discussion at all of | a need for a newsgroup. alt.support.diet.low-fat and alt.support.diet | would cover it, and probably alt.support.diet.weightwatchers may be | able to cover it as well. | | — | | "There’s a seeker born every minute." | | | I think these people are mistaken, and let me say why. | | About the first paragraph: | | First, about a "topic so rarely even discussed on Usenet" — does this | relate to a low calorie approach? Well, we talk about such approaches quite | often on alt.support.diet, but oftentimes there are people warning others | about low-calorie approaches, and it doesn’t take many warnings to turn | people off. | | Second, "calorie reduction is the main component of low-fat dieting" not | necessarily true at all. "Low-calorie" and "low-fat" are not the same thing. | Indeed, many, many "high fat" diets work because the calories are low in | those diets. | | As for the second paragraph, "alt.support.diet.low-fat and alt.support.diet" | are not focused on the bottom lines of low-calorie and regular exercise. As | for "alt.support.diet.weightwatchers" — hmmm… I think Weight Watchers is | a nice organization, but it’s not an organization that defines the only (or | even main) approach to low calorie diets. I’m not a member of Weight | Watchers myself, and I know many, many people who are counting calories who | are not members of Weight Watchers. | | If there was such a group — in which one would be supported by the posters | for low calorie approaches and for daily exercise — there would be no need | for the group noted above. | | But the unfortunate fact is that quite a few times on this newsgroup, people | have said that dieters (presumably all or most dieters) should follow a slow | weight-loss approach, and the people following a more severe calorie | restricted approach whoe have posted here have been sometimes badly | criticized. | | Them’s the facts. | | And, as I noted above, it doesn’t take too much of such criticism to turn | people off to more rapid, motivating ways to lose weight. | | Seems to me that some people don’t want others to have access to such a | Usenet group — or perhaps I am mistaken… But why not have such a group? | | Yours, | | Caleb | |

Response:

First, about a "topic so rarely even discussed on Usenet" — does this relate to a low calorie approach? Well, we talk about such approaches quite often on alt.support.diet

Caleb, if the topic of low calorie diet was often discussed here, then dejanews and other archives would have a record of it. That has not happened. You can’;t make numbers up. In 6 months the words low calorie or low cal were used in only 500 posts to the diet newsgroups, (and that is all combined). And many of those were not discussing low calorie diet, but were low calorie recipes, spam etc. 1000 cals up to 1500 cals respectably were only used a less than 100 times total in the last 6 month. Tell me how that is an often discussed topic? Second, "calorie reduction is the main component of low-fat dieting" not necessarily true at all. "Low-calorie" and "low-fat" are not the same thing. Indeed, many, many "high fat" diets work because the calories are low in those diets.

However, the faqs for the low fat group advocate calorie reduction and exercise. There is an entire section on exercise and also one on structuring a low fat diet including calorie reduction. That is a diet where calories are reduced and exercise is advocated. Sound familiar? Since you have never even posted to asdlf, how can you say what the group supports. We support anything but low carb discussions and because we have a troll you continually tries to post about low carb, there is sometimes friction there. But the diet you propose is the one discussed in asdlf. But the unfortunate fact is that quite a few times on this newsgroup, people have said that dieters (presumably all or most dieters) should follow a slow weight-loss approach, and the people following a more severe calorie restricted approach whoe have posted here have been sometimes badly criticized.

Bear another thing in mind, support is not always a pat on the back and a you go girl. If you think warning people eating 800 cals a day is not being supportive, then you don’t understand the true meaning of support. People eating 1000 cals are often warned that it MIGHT not be a good idea. They are not flamed. They are not attacked. In fact, most of the time eating a very low cal diet is discussed is when people come here and claim to eat so very little and question why their weight loss stopped. Strangely enough, when they up their cals, they usually start losing again. Caleb, there are hundreds of empty newsgroups out there. Several of them on diet support. They are simply taking up space as repositories for diet spam because there is no need for them. But because they exist they take up bandwidth. alt.config is trying to reduce that number by insisting that there be a need for a new group. Simply stating that there is does not make it so. On Dec 12 you asked how many people were interested in your approach and got one message saying yes. That is not a compelling need. No one hassles anyone who eats 1000 cals or more day. And bear in mind the meaning of the word hassled. It is not advising caution. As for exercising. Well, I am not sure why you feel that is not supported since there are exercise clubs and topics galore here and in the fitness newsgroups. They only diet that claims that exercise is not necessary is Atkins. Others advocate it. As for the second paragraph, "alt.support.diet.low-fat and alt.support.diet" are not focused on the bottom lines of low-calorie and regular exercise. As for "alt.support.diet.weight watchers" — hmmm… I think Weight Watchers is a nice organization, but it’s not an organization that defines the only (or even main) approach to low calorie diets. I’m not a member of Weight Watchers myself, and I know many, many people who are counting calories who are not members of Weight Watchers.

I agree that weight watchers is not the best group for non weight watchers people. However, the other two diet groups do discuss exercise and calorie reduction. Seems to me that some people don’t want others to have access to such a Usenet group — or perhaps I am mistaken… But why not have such a group?

bear in mind, that the need for a new newsgroup must be that the topic is not covered by another newsgroup or that the topic is so much discussed that it overwhelms the present newsgroup. Niether of those two requirements are met in your proposed newsgroup. Think of it this way. Groups that are too specific die because there is no one to post to them. It is like having a group alt.stevie.nicks, alt.stevie.nicks.solos-songs, alt,stevie.nicks-album-belladonna, alt.stevienicks.riannon. Clearly the last two are covered by the previous 2 groups. The alt.stevei.nicks.riannon will no doubt become a spam repository and nothing else because it is not a needed area of discussion. Few news servers will even offer it because it is too specific and is already covered in other newsgroups. And since few people will be able to get the group and those that do will hang in alt.stevie-nicks because there is more action. It sounds like you want a group where no one ever disagrees with someone’s choice or voices concern or questions a decision. That will never happen unless it is a tightly moderated group and a group that did not allow any of those types of discussions would die very quickly. Simply wishing there would be a new group, is not sufficient to have one started. It used to be that you could start an alt. group about anything. And we have thousands of dead dusty spam repository alt.groups with no one discssing anything but ads for get rich quick schemes and nutritonal supliments and where to find porno etc. I am not against this group because of the topics, I am against it because it is not needed. It has no statistical evidence that the topic is even discussed, muich less that the topic overwelams any of the groups that are alrady formed and asdlf already exists to discuss the diet you describe. Why not check out asdlf. You have never even posted there and outside of a troll, it is a great group. And continue your idea for a listserv on the topics. Until the group proposed meets the criteria for new groups, it should not be formed simply because someone wants it to be formed. — Claudia Tipletter Writer for Dieting CyberTip4theDay Subscribe today: http://www.CyberTip4theDay.com For hundreds of free low-fat recipes and info visit Claudia’s Corner http://dietchef.ecorp.net

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This was on alt.config, and I place it here, with my comments following the final line of asterisks: Clearly there is no compelling need for a group devoted to a topic so rarely even discussed on Usenet. Furthermore, it is already covered in two newsgroups, the general alt.support.diet and the more specific alt.support.diet.low-fat. Calorie reduction is the main component of low-fat dieting. I have to agree with everything Claudia said. There has been very little discussion of the topic in alt.support.diet, and no discussion at all of a need for a newsgroup. alt.support.diet.low-fat and alt.support.diet would cover it, and probably alt.support.diet.weightwatchers may be able to cover it as well. — "There’s a seeker born every minute." I think these people are mistaken, and let me say why. About the first paragraph: First, about a "topic so rarely even discussed on Usenet" — does this relate to a low calorie approach? Well, we talk about such approaches quite often on alt.support.diet, but oftentimes there are people warning others about low-calorie approaches, and it doesn’t take many warnings to turn people off. Second, "calorie reduction is the main component of low-fat dieting" not necessarily true at all. "Low-calorie" and "low-fat" are not the same thing. Indeed, many, many "high fat" diets work because the calories are low in those diets. As for the second paragraph, "alt.support.diet.low-fat and alt.support.diet" are not focused on the bottom lines of low-calorie and regular exercise. As for "alt.support.diet.weightwatchers" — hmmm… I think Weight Watchers is a nice organization, but it’s not an organization that defines the only (or even main) approach to low calorie diets. I’m not a member of Weight Watchers myself, and I know many, many people who are counting calories who are not members of Weight Watchers. If there was such a group — in which one would be supported by the posters for low calorie approaches and for daily exercise — there would be no need for the group noted above. But the unfortunate fact is that quite a few times on this newsgroup, people have said that dieters (presumably all or most dieters) should follow a slow weight-loss approach, and the people following a more severe calorie restricted approach whoe have posted here have been sometimes badly criticized. Them’s the facts. And, as I noted above, it doesn’t take too much of such criticism to turn people off to more rapid, motivating ways to lose weight. Seems to me that some people don’t want others to have access to such a Usenet group — or perhaps I am mistaken… But why not have such a group? Yours, Caleb

Response:

Kevin — strikes me that 1600 calories would be low calorie for a lot of people. I would consider it low calorie for me and most others. On the other hand, you sure don’t want someone putting their virtual hand on your shoulder and saying, "Kevin — are you SURE you’re doing the right thing? What data do you have proving you are following a healthy life style?" On on a group such as alt.support.diet.low-cal, there would be no criticism of your approach. To the contrary, the general ethos would be one of great support and encouragement! (And if people wanted to follow a higher calorie diet — but still low calorie for them — that would also be supported, etc.) Yours, Caleb Day 27 of next 100 Days

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Maybe the point missed is: define low-cal. I follow the Zone program which is an advocator of a lower calorie WOE. My average is ~1600 cals per day. At 6′2", 196#, this is definitely lower than what the good FDA recommends, but slightly higher than the Zone outlines. So I guess the definition is where you need to be more clear. Low calories is a basic staple to many diets for weight loss. To try to categorize a diet as low-cal is like categorizing a dog as a carnivanour. — Kevin Stackin’ in the Zone – 270/199/200 – Done 10/01/1999! New Goal: 199/196/180 (or when the paunch is gone!) http://24.128.1.75/themurphys/diet/ Be careful – Christmas is coming: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Forest/6726/santa/santabad.jpg A pat on the back is only a few inches from a kick in the pants. —Murphy’s Laws on Working Memories of the previous post revealed… | This was on alt.config, and I place it here, with my comments following the | final line of asterisks: | | | Clearly there is no compelling need for a group devoted to a topic so | rarely | even discussed on Usenet. Furthermore, it is already covered in two | newsgroups, the general alt.support.diet and the more specific | alt.support.diet.low-fat. Calorie reduction is the main component of | low-fat dieting. | | I have to agree with everything Claudia said. There has been very little | discussion of the topic in alt.support.diet, and no discussion at all of | a need for a newsgroup. alt.support.diet.low-fat and alt.support.diet | would cover it, and probably alt.support.diet.weightwatchers may be | able to cover it as well. | | — | | "There’s a seeker born every minute." | | | I think these people are mistaken, and let me say why. | | About the first paragraph: | | First, about a "topic so rarely even discussed on Usenet" — does this | relate to a low calorie approach? Well, we talk about such approaches quite | often on alt.support.diet, but oftentimes there are people warning others | about low-calorie approaches, and it doesn’t take many warnings to turn | people off. | | Second, "calorie reduction is the main component of low-fat dieting" not | necessarily true at all. "Low-calorie" and "low-fat" are not the same thing. | Indeed, many, many "high fat" diets work because the calories are low in | those diets. | | As for the second paragraph, "alt.support.diet.low-fat and alt.support.diet" | are not focused on the bottom lines of low-calorie and regular exercise. As | for "alt.support.diet.weightwatchers" — hmmm… I think Weight Watchers is | a nice organization, but it’s not an organization that defines the only (or | even main) approach to low calorie diets. I’m not a member of Weight | Watchers myself, and I know many, many people who are counting calories who | are not members of Weight Watchers. | | If there was such a group — in which one would be supported by the posters | for low calorie approaches and for daily exercise — there would be no need | for the group noted above. | | But the unfortunate fact is that quite a few times on this newsgroup, people | have said that dieters (presumably all or most dieters) should follow a slow | weight-loss approach, and the people following a more severe calorie | restricted approach whoe have posted here have been sometimes badly | criticized. | | Them’s the facts. | | And, as I noted above, it doesn’t take too much of such criticism to turn | people off to more rapid, motivating ways to lose weight. | | Seems to me that some people don’t want others to have access to such a | Usenet group — or perhaps I am mistaken… But why not have such a group? | | Yours, | | Caleb | |

Response:

x-no-archive: yes Second, "calorie reduction is the main component of low-fat dieting" not necessarily true at all. "Low-calorie" and "low-fat" are not the same thing. Indeed, many, many "high fat" diets work because the calories are low in those diets. you are correct caleb! atkins, PP, Sugarbusters, et al agree that calorie reduction does occur, because the "hunger factor" is taken care of with the ingestion of "good

So what? Which ones suggest eating under 1200 calories a day? NO ONE on asd has argued that reduction of calories in pursuit of weight loss is a bad idea. I doubt that anyone disagrees that lowering one’s caloric intake is a valuable strategy. It’s the level one chooses, Rosie. Clearly, your mind is just not picking up on the issues and just by posting in support of Caleb, you do nothing but hurt his arguments. i am not surprised by the amount of effort being spent in attempting to rosie

For someone who considers a one mile walk every other day her exercise, you are really in no position to be arguing for a need for Caleb’s group. You yourself would not satisfy the criterion of daily exercise. Indeed, you have mocked another person on this newsgroup for being "extreme" in daily exercise. Obviously, you are supporting Caleb not because you actually agree with him but because you fancy yourself his champion and while use hypocricy in your arguments. Unfortunately for Caleb, support from you usually hurts the arguments of the people your supposed "support". Your motivations behind taking up "causes" on this newsgroup have always amused me. Kind of like when you tell a blatant spammer to "ignore" the negativity they get as a result of an ad. Everything is about Rosie. You don’t give a rat’s ass about Caleb’s needs. You don’t fool me at all. Stacy 199/134/undecided

Response:

That is his right. But it is not a good reason to start a newsgroup. BTW, Caleb, where are the hundreds of people you claim post about this subject all the time. Why aren’t they supporting you here and in alt.config? — Claudia Tipletter Writer for Dieting CyberTip4theDay Subscribe today: http://www.CyberTip4theDay.com For hundreds of free low-fat recipes and info visit Claudia’s Corner http://dietchef.ecorp.net

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – wrote in alt.support.diet: :On the other hand, you sure don’t want someone putting their virtual hand on :your shoulder and saying, "Kevin — are you SURE you’re doing the right :thing? What data do you have proving you are following a healthy life :style?" : :On on a group such as alt.support.diet.low-cal, there would be no criticism f your approach. To the contrary, the general ethos would be one of great :support and encouragement! (And if people wanted to follow a higher calorie :diet — but still low calorie for them — that would also be supported, :etc.) : That is why you should create a listserv and not agitate for the creation of a newsgroup. On an unmoderated Usenet group, you will be totally unable to stop criticism and even outright ridicule of your approach. It is much more difficult to create a moderated newsgroup (in which you as the moderator have some control over what gets posted) than it is to create a listserv of which you are in control. It is clear to me that you just don’t want to hear about any of the risks involved in your unique approach to diet and exercise. 173/146.5/110 Y4K Challenge: 3860/4000 A.S.D.– Where Spammers are Killed and Eaten

Response:

Caleb Burns" On the other hand, you sure don’t want someone putting their virtual hand on your shoulder and saying, "Kevin — are you SURE you’re doing the right thing? What data do you have proving you are following a healthy life style?"

Yet in the newsgroups you are asking for studies that prove holding your breath increases aerobic ability and HeavyHands weighted walking is not harmful,amongst others….now which is it? do you want to get away from that "virtual hand" or have it retrieve studies for you in support of your theories? W

Response:

So what you re saying is that no one should ever suggest that someone try eating more if their cals are too low and weight loss slows? And that it is wrong for anyone to suggest a second look at dangerously low cal intake? And what makes you so sure that people on the new newsgroup won’t ever say those things? Support is not just a apt on the back and a you go girl. It is also offering some incite from one’s own negative experience in very low cal diets. It is also trying to help others be as healthy and as happy as possible. No one here flames people who eat low cal. You, to the best of my knowledge have never been flamed (I might be wrong, I have some people killfiled). But you have been cautioned to make sure you remain healthy and don’t get thin to the detriment of your health. If that isn’t support, what is? If I were doing something potentially unheal;thy I would want some one to question me on it. It could mean the difference between healthy weight loss and poor health diet failure. That does not mean I have to change, but it does mean that I will think and that is what it is all about. I did not agree with attacking you personally for wanting to start this group, but this post of yours seems like you want everyone to agree with you. Even in your own Usenet group named after you, it isn’t gonna happen. This is not the hallmark universe. And what will you do with people who are eating dangerously low cals, say 400-700. Will you not put a virtual hand on their shoulder and caution them that they might be damaging their health? Or would you say, great job keep it up until they are too sick to continue to red your supportive posts? And if there is such a need, why is no one posting here about it but you. Why have you not posted in ASDLF which supports a low cal approach to dieting? Why did you say in your proposal that the subject has often been discussed when the facts say otherwise. Why did you say that there has been discussion about starting a low-cal newsgroup when the only mention of it was you 2-3 weeks ago? And why haven’t you started your list serv? And why, when you post asking who does this sort of dieting you get one response? No one flamed that person responding. So don;t blame it on that. And why, if your diet isn’t the same as the low-fat diet, did you say it is the diet most often recommended by doctors etc? Do they make two recommendations? And why haven’t you answered my other questions? I am not trying to attack you, although in this post I come dangerously close to it and maybe am to some extent. However, that is not my intent. Instead it is to poke through the holes of your proposal that are so gapingly there. Setting up a new newsgroup is serious business. If it fails, then there is wasted bandwidth. That is why there are evidentiary requirements for starting a new newsgroup. One thing you might want to consider is what Betty suggested alt.support.diet.extreme or alt.support.diet quick weight loss and make it open to the cabbage soupers and how can I lose 30 pounds in three weeks people. — Claudia Tipletter Writer for Dieting CyberTip4theDay Subscribe today: http://www.CyberTip4theDay.com For hundreds of free low-fat recipes and info visit Claudia’s Corner http://dietchef.ecorp.net

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Kevin — strikes me that 1600 calories would be low calorie for a lot of people. I would consider it low calorie for me and most others. On the other hand, you sure don’t want someone putting their virtual hand on your shoulder and saying, "Kevin — are you SURE you’re doing the right thing? What data do you have proving you are following a healthy life style?" On on a group such as alt.support.diet.low-cal, there would be no criticism of your approach. To the contrary, the general ethos would be one of great support and encouragement! (And if people wanted to follow a higher calorie diet — but still low calorie for them — that would also be supported, etc.) Yours, Caleb Day 27 of next 100 Days Maybe the point missed is: define low-cal. I follow the Zone program which is an advocator of a lower calorie WOE. My average is ~1600 cals per day. At 6′2", 196#, this is definitely lower than what the good FDA recommends, but slightly higher than the Zone outlines. So I guess the definition is where you need to be more clear. Low calories is a basic staple to many diets for weight loss. To try to categorize a diet as low-cal is like categorizing a dog as a carnivanour. — Kevin Stackin’ in the Zone – 270/199/200 – Done 10/01/1999! New Goal: 199/196/180 (or when the paunch is gone!) http://24.128.1.75/themurphys/diet/ Be careful – Christmas is coming: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Forest/6726/santa/santabad.jpg A pat on the back is only a few inches from a kick in the pants. —Murphy’s Laws on Working Memories of the previous post revealed… | This was on alt.config, and I place it here, with my comments following the | final line of asterisks: | | | Clearly there is no compelling need for a group devoted to a topic so | rarely | even discussed on Usenet. Furthermore, it is already covered in two | newsgroups, the general alt.support.diet and the more specific | alt.support.diet.low-fat. Calorie reduction is the main component of | low-fat dieting. | | I have to agree with everything Claudia said. There has been very little | discussion of the topic in alt.support.diet, and no discussion at all of | a need for a newsgroup. alt.support.diet.low-fat and alt.support.diet | would cover it, and probably alt.support.diet.weightwatchers may be | able to cover it as well. | | — | | "There’s a seeker born every minute." | | | I think these people are mistaken, and let me say why. | | About the first paragraph: | | First, about a "topic so rarely even discussed on Usenet" — does this | relate to a low calorie approach? Well, we talk about such approaches quite | often on alt.support.diet, but oftentimes there are people warning others | about low-calorie approaches, and it doesn’t take many warnings to turn | people off. | | Second, "calorie reduction is the main component of low-fat dieting" not | necessarily true at all. "Low-calorie" and "low-fat" are not the same thing. | Indeed, many, many "high fat" diets work because the calories are low in | those diets. | | As for the second paragraph, "alt.support.diet.low-fat and alt.support.diet" | are not focused on the bottom lines of low-calorie and regular exercise. As | for "alt.support.diet.weightwatchers" — hmmm… I think Weight Watchers is | a nice organization, but it’s not an organization that defines the only (or | even main) approach to low calorie diets. I’m not a member of Weight | Watchers myself, and I know many, many people who are counting calories who | are not members of Weight Watchers. | | If there was such a group — in which one would be supported by the posters | for low calorie approaches and for daily exercise — there would be no need | for the group noted above. | | But the unfortunate fact is that quite a few times on this newsgroup, people | have said that dieters (presumably all or most dieters) should follow a slow | weight-loss approach, and the people following a more severe calorie | restricted approach whoe have posted here have been sometimes badly | criticized. | | Them’s the facts. | | And, as I noted above, it doesn’t take too much of such criticism to turn | people off to more rapid, motivating ways to lose weight. | | Seems to me that some people don’t want others to have access to such a | Usenet group — or perhaps I am mistaken… But why not have such a group? | | Yours, | | Caleb | |

Response:

Caleb, I guess I figure that no matter where I go there will still be people criticizing my approach (except they would be called trolls in the on topic group). I really also don’t see a reason to further divide up the groups. I often do low calorie on certain days combined with a couple of higher cal days (when counting calories). I guess criticisms is the least of my worries. Lower traffic to the established groups and maybe an empty new group would be more worrisome. — Norma *This sigline is Y2K compliant*

Response:

Actually, I was wondering about this too. If there’s a low-cal newsgroup then where is the line drawn? If someone claims to have an eating disorder (we’ve had anorexics come and go on asd, for example) and mentions the idea of dropping calories, is that to be supported because it’s a debate-free newsgroup? Where is the line drawn? 1000 calories a day may already be low but what’s the minimum caloric intake before anyone is allowed to suggest that perhaps it’s a bad idea? 100? 200? What about fasting for months on nothing but water? If someone mentions being a recovering anorexic and says that she’s considering dropping from 1000 calories a day to 500, is it off charter to express concern over that decision? Personally, my conscience wouldn’t ALLOW me to support that decision, just because the group was formed for total acceptance of low-cal eating, however the poster defines "low-cal". Does reason matter? Someone who drops to 1000/day for a brief period as a weight loss experiment may be entirely safe and not be risking long-term problems. Someone with a history of eating disorders may be at HIGH risk for relapse if dropping to the same caloric intake is counter to what they got from therapy for that disorder. There is also a disorder often referred to as "exercise bulemia". Would it be considered offensive to mention to someone eating very little that exercising every day to work off a few lettuce leaves may reflect a psychological problem instead of a true enjoyment or need for additional exercise? There are people who exercise several times a day and have unplanned workouts because they made the "mistake" of eating a piece of celery. Where is the line drawn in the Utopian world of a.s.d.low-cal? There is no Utopia; not even on Usenet. There are no debate-free newsgroups. Even the moderated groups have their debates since they aren’t moderated to enforce conformity and a lack of independent thought or ideas. They’re moderated to reduce off-topic posts, flames and advertising. Moderators who moderate to silence diversity of opinion are considered dictators, not reponsible moderators. Stacy 199/134/undecided

Response:

:i will also stop posting on this subject

She has thousands of other subjects to troll! Cowboy

Response:

Claudia — Please tell me where I said "hundreds of people" are posting on this subject all the time? I don’t recollect saying that. (I may have, but it doesn’t sound like me.) About not people not supporting me, I have received supportive e-mails, but I think a lot of people don’t want to run the gauntlet imposed by some people who …. But that’s enough. Yours, Caleb Day 27 of next 100 Days

: That is his right. But it is not a good reason to start a newsgroup. : BTW, Caleb, where are the hundreds of people you claim post about this : subject all the time. Why aren’t they supporting you here and in : alt.config? : — : Claudia : Tipletter Writer for Dieting CyberTip4theDay : Subscribe today: http://www.CyberTip4theDay.com : For hundreds of free low-fat recipes and info visit Claudia’s Corner : http://dietchef.ecorp.net

: wrote in alt.support.diet: : : :On the other hand, you sure don’t want someone putting their virtual hand : on : :your shoulder and saying, "Kevin — are you SURE you’re doing the right : :thing? What data do you have proving you are following a healthy life : :style?" : : : :On on a group such as alt.support.diet.low-cal, there would be no : criticism : f your approach. To the contrary, the general ethos would be one of : great : :support and encouragement! (And if people wanted to follow a higher : calorie : :diet — but still low calorie for them — that would also be supported, : :etc.) : : : That is why you should create a listserv and not agitate for the creation : of a newsgroup. On an unmoderated Usenet group, you will be totally unable : to stop criticism and even outright ridicule of your approach. It is much : more difficult to create a moderated newsgroup (in which you as the : moderator have some control over what gets posted) than it is to create a : listserv of which you are in control. : : It is clear to me that you just don’t want to hear about any of the risks : involved in your unique approach to diet and exercise. : : 173/146.5/110 : Y4K Challenge: 3860/4000 : A.S.D.– Where Spammers are Killed and Eaten — Yours, Caleb Burns, Portland, Oregon For ideas in general to help people: http://www.teleport.com/~calebb

Response:

Truthfully, discussing the safety or the lack there if a very low cal diet would be on topic of the group he proposes. A hundred people a day could post questioning the wisdom of his approach and still be on topic since the targeted discussion is low cal diets and exercise. Perhaps he should go for alt.agree.diet.low-cal. If empty alt.groups were not such a problem it would be fun to see what his group would become before it bit the dust! — Claudia Tipletter Writer for Dieting CyberTip4theDay Subscribe today: http://www.CyberTip4theDay.com For hundreds of free low-fat recipes and info visit Claudia’s Corner http://dietchef.ecorp.net

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So what you re saying is that no one should ever suggest that someone try eating more if their cals are too low and weight loss slows? And that it is wrong for anyone to suggest a second look at dangerously low cal intake? And what makes you so sure that people on the new newsgroup won’t ever say those things? Actually, I was wondering about this too. If there’s a low-cal newsgroup then where is the line drawn? If someone claims to have an eating disorder (we’ve had anorexics come and go on asd, for example) and mentions the idea of dropping calories, is that to be supported because it’s a debate-free newsgroup? Where is the line drawn? 1000 calories a day may already be low but what’s the minimum caloric intake before anyone is allowed to suggest that perhaps it’s a bad idea? 100? 200? What about fasting for months on nothing but water? If someone mentions being a recovering anorexic and says that she’s considering dropping from 1000 calories a day to 500, is it off charter to express concern over that decision? Personally, my conscience wouldn’t ALLOW me to support that decision, just because the group was formed for total acceptance of low-cal eating, however the poster defines "low-cal". Does reason matter? Someone who drops to 1000/day for a brief period as a weight loss experiment may be entirely safe and not be risking long-term problems. Someone with a history of eating disorders may be at HIGH risk for relapse if dropping to the same caloric intake is counter to what they got from therapy for that disorder. There is also a disorder often referred to as "exercise bulemia". Would it be considered offensive to mention to someone eating very little that exercising every day to work off a few lettuce leaves may reflect a psychological problem instead of a true enjoyment or need for additional exercise? There are people who exercise several times a day and have unplanned workouts because they made the "mistake" of eating a piece of celery. Where is the line drawn in the Utopian world of a.s.d.low-cal? There is no Utopia; not even on Usenet. There are no debate-free newsgroups. Even the moderated groups have their debates since they aren’t moderated to enforce conformity and a lack of independent thought or ideas. They’re moderated to reduce off-topic posts, flames and advertising. Moderators who moderate to silence diversity of opinion are considered dictators, not reponsible moderators. Stacy 199/134/undecided

Response:

Claudia — You write: If empty alt.groups were not such a problem it would be fun to see what his group would become before it bit the dust!

Let’s see — are empty alt.groups as much of a problem as world hunger? war among nations? How about as serious as heart attacks and strokes? And exactly who are others to decide what people should set up a newsgroups for? (I mean, there are many, many alt.groups that I would be happy seeing go the way of the dodo.) Yours, Caleb Day 27 of next 100 Days (P.S.– keep up the dieting! Strikes me you are on a pretty restricted diet to make such progress in such a little time period. Why make it difficult for others to make the same gains?)

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Truthfully, discussing the safety or the lack there if a very low cal diet would be on topic of the group he proposes. A hundred people a day could post questioning the wisdom of his approach and still be on topic since the targeted discussion is low cal diets and exercise. Perhaps he should go for alt.agree.diet.low-cal. If empty alt.groups were not such a problem it would be fun to see what his group would become before it bit the dust! — Claudia Tipletter Writer for Dieting CyberTip4theDay Subscribe today: http://www.CyberTip4theDay.com For hundreds of free low-fat recipes and info visit Claudia’s Corner http://dietchef.ecorp.net So what you re saying is that no one should ever suggest that someone try eating more if their cals are too low and weight loss slows? And that it is wrong for anyone to suggest a second look at dangerously low cal intake? And what makes you so sure that people on the new newsgroup won’t ever say those things? Actually, I was wondering about this too. If there’s a low-cal newsgroup then where is the line drawn? If someone claims to have an eating disorder (we’ve had anorexics come and go on asd, for example) and mentions the idea of dropping calories, is that to be supported because it’s a debate-free newsgroup? Where is the line drawn? 1000 calories a day may already be low but what’s the minimum caloric intake before anyone is allowed to suggest that perhaps it’s a bad idea? 100? 200? What about fasting for months on nothing but water? If someone mentions being a recovering anorexic and says that she’s considering dropping from 1000 calories a day to 500, is it off charter to express concern over that decision? Personally, my conscience wouldn’t ALLOW me to support that decision, just because the group was formed for total acceptance of low-cal eating, however the poster defines "low-cal". Does reason matter? Someone who drops to 1000/day for a brief period as a weight loss experiment may be entirely safe and not be risking long-term problems. Someone with a history of eating disorders may be at HIGH risk for relapse if dropping to the same caloric intake is counter to what they got from therapy for that disorder. There is also a disorder often referred to as "exercise bulemia". Would it be considered offensive to mention to someone eating very little that exercising every day to work off a few lettuce leaves may reflect a psychological problem instead of a true enjoyment or need for additional exercise? There are people who exercise several times a day and have unplanned workouts because they made the "mistake" of eating a piece of celery. Where is the line drawn in the Utopian world of a.s.d.low-cal? There is no Utopia; not even on Usenet. There are no debate-free newsgroups. Even the moderated groups have their debates since they aren’t moderated to enforce conformity and a lack of independent thought or ideas. They’re moderated to reduce off-topic posts, flames and advertising. Moderators who moderate to silence diversity of opinion are considered dictators, not reponsible moderators. Stacy 199/134/undecided

Response:

You still missed my point – define low cal. Now think about how many diets that recommend reducing calories for weight loss. Lots. How can you justify placing all of these participants of different WOEs into a common low cal group? Makes little sense to me. BTW – my intake is based on research initiated by Dr. Barry Sears and other colleagues. If you would like references I can provide the titles to their books. — Kevin Stackin’ in the Zone – 270/199/200 – Done 10/01/1999! New Goal: 199/196/180 (or when the paunch is gone!) http://24.128.1.75/themurphys/diet/ Be careful – Christmas is coming: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Forest/6726/santa/santabad.jpg A pat on the back is only a few inches from a kick in the pants. —Murphy’s Laws on Working Memories of the previous post revealed…

| Kevin — strikes me that 1600 calories would be low calorie for a lot of | people. I would consider it low calorie for me and most others. | | On the other hand, you sure don’t want someone putting their virtual hand on | your shoulder and saying, "Kevin — are you SURE you’re doing the right | thing? What data do you have proving you are following a healthy life | style?" | | On on a group such as alt.support.diet.low-cal, there would be no criticism | of your approach. To the contrary, the general ethos would be one of great | support and encouragement! (And if people wanted to follow a higher calorie | diet — but still low calorie for them — that would also be supported, | etc.) | | Yours, | | Caleb | Day 27 of next 100 Days |

| Maybe the point missed is: define low-cal. | | I follow the Zone program which is an advocator of a lower calorie WOE. My | average is ~1600 cals per day. At 6′2", 196#, this is definitely lower | than | what the good FDA recommends, but slightly higher than the Zone outlines. | | So I guess the definition is where you need to be more clear. Low calories | is a basic staple to many diets for weight loss. To try to categorize a | diet | as low-cal is like categorizing a dog as a carnivanour. | | — | Kevin | Stackin’ in the Zone – 270/199/200 – Done 10/01/1999! | New Goal: 199/196/180 (or when the paunch is gone!) | http://24.128.1.75/themurphys/diet/ | | Be careful – Christmas is coming: | http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Forest/6726/santa/santabad.jpg | | A pat on the back is only a few inches from a kick in the pants. | —Murphy’s Laws on Working | | Memories of the previous post revealed… | | | This was on alt.config, and I place it here, with my comments following | the | | final line of asterisks: | | | | | | Clearly there is no compelling need for a group devoted to a topic so | | rarely | | even discussed on Usenet. Furthermore, it is already covered in two | | newsgroups, the general alt.support.diet and the more specific | | alt.support.diet.low-fat. Calorie reduction is the main component of | | low-fat dieting. | | | | I have to agree with everything Claudia said. There has been very | little | | discussion of the topic in alt.support.diet, and no discussion at all of | | a need for a newsgroup. alt.support.diet.low-fat and alt.support.diet | | would cover it, and probably alt.support.diet.weightwatchers may be | | able to cover it as well. | | | | — | | | | "There’s a seeker born every minute." | | | | | | I think these people are mistaken, and let me say why. | | | | About the first paragraph: | | | | First, about a "topic so rarely even discussed on Usenet" — does this | | relate to a low calorie approach? Well, we talk about such approaches | quite | | often on alt.support.diet, but oftentimes there are people warning | others | | about low-calorie approaches, and it doesn’t take many warnings to turn | | people off. | | | | Second, "calorie reduction is the main component of low-fat dieting" not | | necessarily true at all. "Low-calorie" and "low-fat" are not the same | thing. | | Indeed, many, many "high fat" diets work because the calories are low in | | those diets. | | | | As for the second paragraph, "alt.support.diet.low-fat and | alt.support.diet" | | are not focused on the bottom lines of low-calorie and regular exercise. | As | | for "alt.support.diet.weightwatchers" — hmmm… I think Weight Watchers | is | | a nice organization, but it’s not an organization that defines the only | (or | | even main) approach to low calorie diets. I’m not a member of Weight | | Watchers myself, and I know many, many people who are counting calories | who | | are not members of Weight Watchers. | | | | If there was such a group — in which one would be supported by the | posters | | for low calorie approaches and for daily exercise — there would be no | need | | for the group noted above. | | | | But the unfortunate fact is that quite a few times on this newsgroup, | people | | have said that dieters (presumably all or most dieters) should follow a | slow | | weight-loss approach, and the people following a more severe calorie | | restricted approach whoe have posted here have been sometimes badly | | criticized. | | | | Them’s the facts. | | | | And, as I noted above, it doesn’t take too much of such criticism to | turn | | people off to more rapid, motivating ways to lose weight. | | | | Seems to me that some people don’t want others to have access to such a | | Usenet group — or perhaps I am mistaken… But why not have such a | group? | | | | Yours, | | | | Caleb | | | | | | | |

Response:

Claudia — How nice of you to avoid personal attacks! I love it! "Brady! Brady! Brady!" Kind of reminds me of "Inherit the Wind." "We shall split the Pentateuch and call it the Book of Brady!" (Or whatever Spencer Tracy says.) And who are you to call low-calorie approaches "barren wastelands of spam" (as I think you are doing)?

As for how newsgroups are started, this is one of the ways suggested. I will try not to make personal attacks about how this has subsequently evolved. (But do you understand the difference between low-cal and low-fat yet? etc. etc.) If you really want to start another newsgroup, don;t you think it would behoove you to actually put the effort into finding out how it should be done? You will find that the logic "Caleb says so it should be done" doesn’t fly very well in the world, either CS or the RL.

Oh, and how nice you have included For hundreds of free low-fat recipes and info visit Claudia’s Corner http://dietchef.ecorp.net

in your ongoing signature line. (But how can we be sure that in the future you will not be making money on this? e.g., selling a book? perhaps establishing return customers?) I am certainly not knowledgeable on the ins and out of the internet, and do not know what is a marketable position, but… I wonder how many administrators would be pleased at your ongoing signature line promoting your news service. Heck — maybe they all would be… You probably know more about this than I do. Yours, Caleb P.S. — what weight program are you using? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — claudia 565/334/157 To email me remove the potatoes Tipletter Writer for Dieting CyberTip4theDay Subscribe today: http://www.CyberTip4theDay.com For hundreds of free low-fat recipes and info visit Claudia’s Corner http://dietchef.ecorp.net Claudia — You write: If empty alt.groups were not such a problem it would be fun to see what his group would become before it bit the dust! Let’s see — are empty alt.groups as much of a problem as world hunger? war among nations? How about as serious as heart attacks and strokes? And exactly who are others to decide what people should set up a newsgroups for? (I mean, there are many, many alt.groups that I would be happy seeing go the way of the dodo.) Yours, Caleb Day 27 of next 100 Days (P.S.– keep up the dieting! Strikes me you are on a pretty restricted diet to make such progress in such a little time period. Why make it difficult for others to make the same gains?) Truthfully, discussing the safety or the lack there if a very low cal diet would be on topic of the group he proposes. A hundred people a day could post questioning the wisdom of his approach and still be on topic since the targeted discussion is low cal diets and exercise. Perhaps he should go for alt.agree.diet.low-cal. If empty alt.groups were not such a problem it would be fun to see what his group would become before it bit the dust! — Claudia Tipletter Writer for Dieting CyberTip4theDay Subscribe today: http://www.CyberTip4theDay.com For hundreds of free low-fat recipes and info visit Claudia’s Corner http://dietchef.ecorp.net So what you re saying is that no one should ever suggest that someone try eating more if their cals are too low and weight loss slows? And that it is wrong for anyone to suggest a second look at dangerously low cal intake? And what makes you so sure that people on the new newsgroup won’t ever say those things? Actually, I was wondering about this too. If there’s a low-cal newsgroup then where is the line drawn? If someone claims to have an eating disorder (we’ve had anorexics come and go on asd, for example) and mentions the idea of dropping calories, is that to be supported because it’s a debate-free newsgroup? Where is the line drawn? 1000 calories a day may already be low but what’s the minimum caloric intake before anyone is allowed to suggest that perhaps it’s a bad idea? 100? 200? What about fasting for months on nothing but water? If someone mentions being a recovering anorexic and says that she’s considering dropping from 1000 calories a day to 500, is it off charter to express concern over that decision? Personally, my conscience wouldn’t ALLOW me to support that decision, just because the group was formed for total acceptance of low-cal eating, however the poster defines "low-cal". Does reason matter? Someone who drops to 1000/day for a brief period as a weight loss experiment may be entirely safe and not be risking long-term problems. Someone with a history of eating disorders may be at HIGH risk for relapse if dropping to the same caloric intake is counter to what they got from therapy for that disorder. There is also a disorder often referred to as "exercise bulemia". Would it be considered offensive to mention to someone eating very little that exercising every day to work off a few lettuce leaves may reflect a psychological problem instead of a true enjoyment or need for additional exercise? There are people who exercise several times a day and have unplanned workouts because they made the "mistake" of eating a piece of celery. Where is the line drawn in the Utopian world of a.s.d.low-cal? There is no Utopia; not even on Usenet. There are no debate-free newsgroups. Even the moderated groups have their debates since they aren’t moderated to enforce conformity and a lack of independent thought or ideas. They’re moderated to reduce off-topic posts, flames and advertising. Moderators who moderate to silence diversity of opinion are considered dictators, not reponsible moderators. Stacy 199/134/undecided

Response:

Leigh — I agree with you: "Duh. All approaches to weight-loss are low calorie. Even Atkins ends up being low-calorie in the long run as the food choices are so limited one becomes bored and ends up eating less." But some people on this group say that low-calorie and low-fat are the same thing. You don’t say that, and I agree with you. I hope you will help convince them that your arguments are sound. Yours, Caleb Day 28 of Next 100 Days

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – wrote in alt.support.diet: :And who are you to call low-calorie approaches "barren wastelands of spam" as I think you are doing)? Once again, Caleb misses the point. The newsgroup proposed by Caleb, which is for the stated purpose of promoting low-calorie approaches — (Duh. All approaches to weight-loss are low calorie. Even Atkins ends up being low-calorie in the long run as the food choices are so limited one becomes bored and ends up eating less) — Caleb’s newsgroup, however, will ruthlessly stifle any comments and opinions which he deems "discouraging" and "critical" which we all know by know mean "anything which disagrees with Caleb)". So nobody will post there except for Caleb, rosie, and the MLM gang. Come to think of it, they need each other. 173/146.5/110 Y4K Challenge: 3860/4000 A.S.D.– Where Spammers are Killed and Eaten

Response:

Wherna — this is what Claudia wrote about low calorie approaches: Clearly there is no compelling need for a group devoted to a topic so rarely even discussed on Usenet. Furthermore, it is already covered in two newsgroups, the general alt.support.diet and the more specific alt.support.diet.low-fat. Calorie reduction is the main component of low-fat dieting.

But I argued that calorie reduction is also a reason that low-carb works too, and that a group called: alt.support.diet.low-cal could address issues common to low-carb, low-fat, other types of diets, etc. To say that such a group is not needed because "Calorie reducton is the main component of low-fat dieting" sounds pretty darned close to saying they are the same thing, and it also suggests, I think, that people following low-carb approaches would be less interested in low calorie approaches. Hence, I like Leigh’s statement about low-carb approaches also being low calorie. Yours, Caleb

Caleb Burns Leigh — I was told that there was no need for a group called alt.support.diet.low-cal because low-cal was the same as low-fat, and there is already a low-fat group. It was not said that lo cal and low fat were the same at all! What was said was that the low fat newsgroup folks eat low fat as well as count

calories.*(*&^ (swear word excised by Caleb) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ,you are a contrary so and so! W

Response:

Caleb Burns Leigh — I was told that there was no need for a group called alt.support.diet.low-cal because low-cal was the same as low-fat, and there is already a low-fat group.

It was not said that lo cal and low fat were the same at all! What was said was that the low fat newsgroup folks eat low fat as well as count calories.Damn ,you are a contrary so and so! W

Response:

Leigh — I was told that there was no need for a group called alt.support.diet.low-cal because low-cal was the same as low-fat, and there is already a low-fat group. Yours, Caleb

Response:

And who are you to call low-calorie approaches "barren wastelands of spam" (as I think you are doing)?

No Caleb, I have never called low calorie approaches a barren wasteland of spam. I have called empty newsgroups a barren wasteland of spam. Please stop looking for insults where there are none. As for how newsgroups are started, this is one of the ways suggested. I will try not to make personal attacks about how this has subsequently evolved. (But do you understand the difference between low-cal and low-fat yet? etc. etc.)

Actually, I see a low fat low cal approach as the same as a low cal approach. So do the asdslf faqs. in your ongoing signature line. (But how can we be sure that in the future you will not be making money on this? e.g., selling a book? perhaps establishing return customers?) I am certainly not knowledgeable on the ins and out of the internet, and do not know what is a marketable position, but…

Thanks you for attacking me personally. I will not stoop to your level. . My website is full of things that are freely given. Does that threaten you? I wonder how many administrators would be pleased at your ongoing signature line promoting your news service. Heck — maybe they all would be… You probably know more about this than I do.

What news service? I don’t have a news service. Even if I was selling something, and I am not, my sig line would comply with Usenet admits sig line policy and with the faqs of this group. Why do you feel the need to make personal attacks? I have discussed the merits and weakness of your newsgroup proposal. My father always taught me that when people know they have no defense based on the facts and merits of a situation, they resort to personal attacks. About a month a go, when I questioned someone about their low calorie intake you made the comment that I should not be posting since I obviously hadn’t lost any weight recently. To day you are singing my praises. What is that about? Are you afraid of me? Do I threaten you? Why do you dislike people who disagree with you. Don’t you like to be challenged to be more than you are? Caleb, I am more than willing to help you work on your self esteem if you would like. And that IS a genuine offer. — claudia 565/334/157 To email me remove the potatoes Tipletter Writer for Dieting CyberTip4theDay Subscribe today: http://www.CyberTip4theDay.com For hundreds of free low-fat recipes and info visit Claudia’s Corner http://dietchef.ecorp.net

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Claudia — How nice of you to avoid personal attacks! I love it! "Brady! Brady! Brady!" Kind of reminds me of "Inherit the Wind." "We shall split the Pentateuch and call it the Book of Brady!" (Or whatever Spencer Tracy says.) And who are you to call low-calorie approaches "barren wastelands of spam" (as I think you are doing)? Believe it or not Caleb there is a structure to Usenet and there are rules for how things are done. There are a group of people who have taken on the challenge of administering Usenet. Part of the reason why they have developed the requirements for starting a newsgroup is because of all the stupid groups that now are barren wastelands of spam. They are the people who cancel spam, monitor newsgroups, deal with net abuse. The people are often at the sys admin level simply because it requires a large commitment and a lot of abuse form pissed off spammers etc. As for how newsgroups are started, this is one of the ways suggested. I will try not to make personal attacks about how this has subsequently evolved. (But do you understand the difference between low-cal and low-fat yet? etc. etc.) If you really want to start another newsgroup, don;t you think it would behoove you to actually put the effort into finding out how it should be done? You will find that the logic "Caleb says so it should be done" doesn’t fly very well in the world, either CS or the RL. Oh, and how nice you have included For hundreds of free low-fat recipes and info visit Claudia’s Corner http://dietchef.ecorp.net in your ongoing signature line. (But how can we be sure that in the future you will not be making money on this? e.g., selling a book? perhaps establishing return customers?) I am certainly not knowledgeable on the ins and out of the internet, and do not know what is a marketable position, but… I wonder how many administrators would be pleased at your ongoing signature line promoting your news service. Heck — maybe they all would be… You probably know more about this than I do. Yours, Caleb P.S. — what weight program are you using? — claudia 565/334/157 To email me remove the potatoes Tipletter Writer for Dieting CyberTip4theDay Subscribe today: http://www.CyberTip4theDay.com For hundreds of free low-fat recipes and info visit Claudia’s Corner http://dietchef.ecorp.net Claudia — You write: If empty alt.groups were not such a problem it would be fun to see what his group would become before it bit the dust! Let’s see — are empty alt.groups as much of a problem as world hunger? war among nations? How about as serious as heart attacks and strokes? And exactly who are others to decide what people should set up a newsgroups for? (I mean, there are many, many alt.groups that I would be happy seeing go the way of the dodo.) Yours, Caleb Day 27 of next 100 Days (P.S.– keep up the dieting! Strikes me you are on a pretty restricted diet to make such progress in such a little time period. Why make it difficult for others to make the same gains?) Truthfully, discussing the safety or the lack there if a very low cal diet would be on topic of the group he proposes. A hundred people a day could post questioning the wisdom of his approach and still be on topic since the targeted discussion is low cal diets and exercise. Perhaps he should go for alt.agree.diet.low-cal. If empty alt.groups were not such a problem it would be fun to see what his group would become before it bit the dust! — Claudia Tipletter Writer for Dieting CyberTip4theDay Subscribe today: http://www.CyberTip4theDay.com For hundreds of free low-fat recipes and info visit Claudia’s Corner http://dietchef.ecorp.net So what you re saying is that no one should ever suggest that someone try eating more if their cals are too low and weight loss slows? And that it is wrong for anyone to suggest a second look at dangerously low cal intake? And what makes you so sure that people on the new newsgroup won’t ever say those things? Actually, I was wondering about this too. If there’s a low-cal newsgroup then where is the line drawn? If someone claims to have an eating disorder (we’ve had anorexics come and go on asd, for example) and mentions the idea of dropping calories, is that to be supported because it’s a debate-free newsgroup? Where is the line drawn? 1000 calories a day may already be low but what’s the minimum caloric intake before anyone is allowed to suggest that perhaps it’s a bad idea? 100? 200? What about fasting for months on nothing but water? If someone mentions being a recovering anorexic and says that she’s considering dropping from 1000 calories a day to 500, is it off charter to express concern over that decision? Personally, my conscience wouldn’t ALLOW me to support that decision, just because the group was formed for total acceptance of low-cal eating, however the poster defines "low-cal". Does reason matter? Someone who drops to 1000/day for a brief period as a weight loss experiment may be entirely safe and not be risking long-term problems. Someone with a history of eating disorders may be at HIGH risk for relapse if dropping to the same caloric intake is counter to what they got from therapy for that disorder. There is also a disorder often referred to as "exercise bulemia". Would it be considered offensive to mention to someone eating very little that exercising every day to work off a few lettuce leaves may reflect a psychological problem instead of a true enjoyment or need for additional exercise? There are people who exercise several times a day and have unplanned workouts because they made the "mistake" of eating a piece of celery. Where is the line

Response:

Caleb that the low fat newsgroup folks eat low fat as well as count calories.*(*&^ (swear word excised by Caleb) ,you are a contrary so and so! W

Y ou are bowdlerizing my posts! That’s nervy as hell! W

Response:

Believe it or not Caleb there is a structure to Usenet and there are rules for how things are done. There are a group of people who have taken on the challenge of administering Usenet. Part of the reason why they have developed the requirements for starting a newsgroup is because of all the stupid groups that now are barren wastelands of spam. They are the people who cancel spam, monitor newsgroups, deal with net abuse. The people are often at the sys admin level simply because it requires a large commitment and a lot of abuse form pissed off spammers etc. If you really want to start another newsgroup, don;t you think it would behoove you to actually put the effort into finding out how it should be done? You will find that the logic "Caleb says so it should be done" doesn’t fly very well in the world, either CS or the RL. — claudia 565/334/157 To email me remove the potatoes Tipletter Writer for Dieting CyberTip4theDay Subscribe today: http://www.CyberTip4theDay.com For hundreds of free low-fat recipes and info visit Claudia’s Corner http://dietchef.ecorp.net

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Claudia — You write: If empty alt.groups were not such a problem it would be fun to see what his group would become before it bit the dust! Let’s see — are empty alt.groups as much of a problem as world hunger? war among nations? How about as serious as heart attacks and strokes? And exactly who are others to decide what people should set up a newsgroups for? (I mean, there are many, many alt.groups that I would be happy seeing go the way of the dodo.) Yours, Caleb Day 27 of next 100 Days (P.S.– keep up the dieting! Strikes me you are on a pretty restricted diet to make such progress in such a little time period. Why make it difficult for others to make the same gains?) Truthfully, discussing the safety or the lack there if a very low cal diet would be on topic of the group he proposes. A hundred people a day could post questioning the wisdom of his approach and still be on topic since the targeted discussion is low cal diets and exercise. Perhaps he should go for alt.agree.diet.low-cal. If empty alt.groups were not such a problem it would be fun to see what his group would become before it bit the dust! — Claudia Tipletter Writer for Dieting CyberTip4theDay Subscribe today: http://www.CyberTip4theDay.com For hundreds of free low-fat recipes and info visit Claudia’s Corner http://dietchef.ecorp.net So what you re saying is that no one should ever suggest that someone try eating more if their cals are too low and weight loss slows? And that it is wrong for anyone to suggest a second look at dangerously low cal intake? And what makes you so sure that people on the new newsgroup won’t ever say those things? Actually, I was wondering about this too. If there’s a low-cal newsgroup then where is the line drawn? If someone claims to have an eating disorder (we’ve had anorexics come and go on asd, for example) and mentions the idea of dropping calories, is that to be supported because it’s a debate-free newsgroup? Where is the line drawn? 1000 calories a day may already be low but what’s the minimum caloric intake before anyone is allowed to suggest that perhaps it’s a bad idea? 100? 200? What about fasting for months on nothing but water? If someone mentions being a recovering anorexic and says that she’s considering dropping from 1000 calories a day to 500, is it off charter to express concern over that decision? Personally, my conscience wouldn’t ALLOW me to support that decision, just because the group was formed for total acceptance of low-cal eating, however the poster defines "low-cal". Does reason matter? Someone who drops to 1000/day for a brief period as a weight loss experiment may be entirely safe and not be risking long-term problems. Someone with a history of eating disorders may be at HIGH risk for relapse if dropping to the same caloric intake is counter to what they got from therapy for that disorder. There is also a disorder often referred to as "exercise bulemia". Would it be considered offensive to mention to someone eating very little that exercising every day to work off a few lettuce leaves may reflect a psychological problem instead of a true enjoyment or need for additional exercise? There are people who exercise several times a day and have unplanned workouts because they made the "mistake" of eating a piece of celery. Where is the line drawn in the Utopian world of a.s.d.low-cal? There is no Utopia; not even on Usenet. There are no debate-free newsgroups. Even the moderated groups have their debates since they aren’t moderated to enforce conformity and a lack of independent thought or ideas. They’re moderated to reduce off-topic posts, flames and advertising. Moderators who moderate to silence diversity of opinion are considered dictators, not reponsible moderators. Stacy 199/134/undecided

Response:

Actually, I think Atkins says that most low carbers lose weight because they are more satisfied on low carb food and therefore eat less cals. — claudia 565/334/157 To email me remove the potatoes Tipletter Writer for Dieting CyberTip4theDay Subscribe today: http://www.CyberTip4theDay.com For hundreds of free low-fat recipes and info visit Claudia’s Corner http://dietchef.ecorp.net

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Wherna — this is what Claudia wrote about low calorie approaches: Clearly there is no compelling need for a group devoted to a topic so rarely even discussed on Usenet. Furthermore, it is already covered in two newsgroups, the general alt.support.diet and the more specific alt.support.diet.low-fat. Calorie reduction is the main component of low-fat dieting. But I argued that calorie reduction is also a reason that low-carb works too, and that a group called: alt.support.diet.low-cal could address issues common to low-carb, low-fat, other types of diets, etc. To say that such a group is not needed because "Calorie reducton is the main component of low-fat dieting" sounds pretty darned close to saying they are the same thing, and it also suggests, I think, that people following low-carb approaches would be less interested in low calorie approaches. Hence, I like Leigh’s statement about low-carb approaches also being low calorie. Yours, Caleb Caleb Burns Leigh — I was told that there was no need for a group called alt.support.diet.low-cal because low-cal was the same as low-fat, and there is already a low-fat group. It was not said that lo cal and low fat were the same at all! What was said was that the low fat newsgroup folks eat low fat as well as count calories.*(*&^ (swear word excised by Caleb) ,you are a contrary so and so! W

Response:

Actually, I think Atkins says that most low carbers lose weight because they are more satisfied on low carb food and therefore eat less cals.

Not that I disagree that calories do count but he only lists this as one benefit of his plan and not as the basis for weight loss. My own success has borne that out (even though I did start hating food and eating too little recently which, BTW, hadn’t resulted in more weight loss!). I was eating more calories during most of my loss on Atkins than I was able to when eating low-fat/low-cal and losing no weight. In a way, it would have been pretty hard to eat fewer calories on low-carb because fat calories accumulate pretty quickly and if I had limited myself to my previous caloric intake, the volume of food I’d have been able to eat would have been pretty small on low-carb. It makes some sense that you can eat more (but not a LOT more calories) on low-carb since ketones are pretty inefficient end-products of rapid fat catabolism and you basically end up pissing some of the energy (and therefore, calories) that could have been used as fuel. Still, though, it’s pretty obvious to me that those who believe that they can eat all the calories they want on low-carb aren’t making sense. If it’s not getting stored then where the heck are the fat calories one isn’t burning going? If you passed them, I’d assume you’d get the same umpleasant effects you’d get from too much Olean or eating too much fat and having it leave due to that new prescription drug (the name escapes me at the moment) and have greasy crap Given the large number of posts regarding constipation problems on Atkins, I doubt it happens much, if ever. Stacy 199/134/undecided

Low Calorie Diet